DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 07/20/2023. Claims 1-12 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-6, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “An infant blood oxygen saturation monitoring method, comprising the following steps: A, performing reflective testing on soles of an infant by red light λ1 and infrared light λ2 to obtain blood flow signals IMAX λ1 and IMAX λ2 at the soles of the infant, respectively; B, analyzing the blood flow signals to obtain alternating current components IAC λ1 and IAC λ2 of the blood flow signals, respectively; C, analyzing intensity changes of the red light and the infrared light, and a relationship between blood flow signal strength and a blood oxygen saturation, and calculating test constants As, Bs, and Cs; D, combining As, Bs, and Cs with IMAX λ1, IMAX λ2, IAC λ1, and IAC λ2, and obtaining the blood oxygen saturation of the infant by a blood oxygen saturation calculation formula X:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
This falls into a mental process/mathematical equation grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of performing reflective testing on soles of an infant by red light λ1 and infrared light λ2 to obtain blood flow signals IMAX λ1 and IMAX λ2 at the soles of the infant is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of analyzing the blood flow signals to obtain alternating current components IAC λ1 and IAC λ2 of the blood flow signals, respectively is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of analyzing intensity changes of the red light and the infrared light, and a relationship between blood flow signal strength and a blood oxygen saturation, and calculating test constants As, Bs, and Cs is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
The step of combining As, Bs, and Cs with IMAX λ1, IMAX λ2, IAC λ1, and IAC λ2, and obtaining the blood oxygen saturation of the infant by a blood oxygen saturation calculation formula X:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of the inclusion of a light emitter and receiver (a generic optical sensor) for measuring data is merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which also does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a generic optical sensor for data collection are claimed. As noted previously, the inclusion of a generic optical sensor for gathering data (merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering), does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claimed sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The following examples show a generic optical sensor for oxygen saturation measurements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity: US 6714803 B1, US 20140278229 A1, US 5842982 A
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “An intelligent monitoring device using the infant blood oxygen saturation monitoring method according to claim 1”; however, fails to recite how the method according to claim 1 is implemented and what elements are used to implement the method. As such claim 7 is indefinite.
Regarding claims 8-12, the claims are written in such language so as to recite performing steps. This is method claim language. However, the claims are apparatus claims. As such it is unclear as to whether the claims are meant to be apparatus claims or method claims. As such the claims are indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 7, US 20140278229 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hong”) teaches a sensor device having a housing having a thermometer (paragraph [0317]), a heart rate oxygen saturation sensor (paragraph [0113]), and a processor (paragraphs [0229]-[0231]).
However, the prior art does not teach or suggest “ An intelligent monitoring device using the infant blood oxygen saturation monitoring method according to claim 1”, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Claim 1, and claims dependent thereof, are rejected under 35 USC 101, but recite subject matter not found in the prior art search.
Regarding claim 1, US 5842982 A (hereinafter referred to as “Mannheimer”) teaches an infant neonatal pulse oximeter which can be attached to the foot of a user (abstract; as shown in Figures 1-2) using two wavelengths (column 1, lines 19-30).
“Reflective oxygen saturation monitoring at hypothenar and its validation by human hypoxia experiment” (hereinafter referred to as “Guo”) teaches A second-order polynomial was used for calibration formula for measuring oxygen saturation.
US 6714803 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Mortz”) teaches analyzing the blood flow signals to obtain alternating current components IAC λ1 and IAC λ2 of the blood flow signals.
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “calculating test constants As, Bs, and Cs; D, combining As, Bs, and Cs with IMAX λ1, IMAX λ2, IAC λ1, and IAC λ2, and obtaining the blood oxygen saturation of the infant by a blood oxygen saturation calculation formula X:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/Examiner, Art Unit 3791